Question for fire risk assessors

[Mushy]

have I got this right?

When you carry out your FRA, you are then representing the responsible person...as if the responsible person has done the FRA themselves?

and when the Fire Authority check the findings it is the responsible person that is accountable?

What happens then if you do a FRA and the responsible person does not agree with aspects within it....ok I understand that you would discuss it with them and try and sort it out but what if in the final analysis, the RP still doesn't agree with the findings?

[William 29]

Good question Mushy,

In my opinion the name of RP should be recorded in any FRA either as a named individual or a corporate body (see Article 32 ( and (9) of the RSFSO though)

Yes the FRA is done on behalf of the RP but they will always remain responsible for the outcomes/findings.

We have on many occasions arrived at findings that the RP does not agree with usually when there are cost implications such as training, fire alarm and emergency lighting systems requirements etc.  However the FRA can not pull any punches by watering down guidance and accepted practices to suit the client’s needs.  Without going in to all the detail we have done 2 FRA’s for a client in what is termed as “assisted living” where the FRA’s ultimate conclusions were to reinstate 24 hour wardens or install a residential sprinkler system (the later costing 10k in each property) as a result both “homes” had to close.

If you conduct your FRA’s based on the risks presented and use your professional judgment and current guidance to arrive at the findings, when they are presented to the client they should not be changed just because they don’t like it.  Having said that the FRA should provide the client with a range of cost effective solutions to address any deficiencies with appropriate time scales for completion.

[Mar62]

In my opinion the name of RP should be recorded in any FRA either as a named individual or a corporate body (see Article 32 ( and (9) of the RSFSO though)

If you conduct your FRA’s based on the risks presented and use your professional judgment and current guidance to arrive at the findings, when they are presented to the client they should not be changed just because they don’t like it.  Having said that the FRA should provide the client with a range of cost effective solutions to address any deficiencies with appropriate time scales for completion.

Totally agree with you William about the RP being recorded.

I had a client sometime ago who argued against two of our recommendations. One was to upgrade very old doors to flats with fire doors and the other was to install an alarm system in the common areas (because of the area and physical evidence of a previous arson attempt by kids!!) He didnt want it in the assessment, we tried to reason with him and finally succeded. One week later after we had finalised things there was a fire in the common area!

[Mike Buckley]

Yes I agree the RP should be recorded. If you are carrying out a risk assessment as a competent person then you should put everything in. It is up to the RP to make the decisions on wht will or will not be done and up to the RP to justify those decisions. If you leave something out because of pressure from the RP, the brown smelly stuff will land on you if it goes wrong.

[jokar]

The RP has accountability responsibilty and the money.  The risk assessor as a competent person does not.  Write the FRA with the outcomes you decide and let the RP make decisions to the wya they want to go.

[twistedfirestopper]

If the RP does not act on your significant findings in the FRA or show that they are doing all that is that is reasonably practical then any enforcement that is required will be served on them and not you.

[Mushy]

It just seems a bit strange that a notice could be served on a RP because they are not acting on something that is in their own FRA!

I would like to see them explain that away in court

[jokar]

Article 34 states that the RP has the onus of responsibilty to ALARP.  They have the choice once a series of outcomes have been explained to them in an FRA to do or not to do.  Time trouble inconvienience versus cost.

[William 29]

Article 34 states that the RP has the onus of responsibilty to ALARP.  They have the choice once a series of outcomes have been explained to them in an FRA to do or not to do.  Time trouble inconvienience versus cost.

Just another angle on the subject as I am coming across this more often.  RP gets the FRA done and then gets audited by the local fire safety officer who tells the RP that certain aspects of the FRA are over the top and a lesser standard will do.

I'll give you a specific example to explain.  FRA done in a shop/warehouse open to the public with an enclosed mezzanine floor above with limited vision in to the warehouse below which is used as offices (single direction of escape in to the warehouse then 2 directions of travel, neither within 3m of the foot of the stair) The mezz floor never went through buildings regs and the current occupier inherited this current situation.

Basically (amongst other items) the FRA recommends a BS 5839 Part 1 L5(M) fire alarm system to compensate and also emergency lighting to cover the escape routes in the warehouse.  

FSO reads the FRA and says to the client that  gongs will be ok as a fire alarm and torches for emergency lighting.

In a fire situation where someone got injured or worse, where would the responsibilities lie?

[nearlythere]

Article 34 states that the RP has the onus of responsibilty to ALARP.  They have the choice once a series of outcomes have been explained to them in an FRA to do or not to do.  Time trouble inconvienience versus cost.

Just another angle on the subject as I am coming across this more often.  RP gets the FRA done and then gets audited by the local fire safety officer who tells the RP that certain aspects of the FRA are over the top and a lesser standard will do.

I'll give you a specific example to explain.  FRA done in a shop/warehouse open to the public with an enclosed mezzanine floor above with limited vision in to the warehouse below which is used as offices (single direction of escape in to the warehouse then 2 directions of travel, neither within 3m of the foot of the stair) The mezz floor never went through buildings regs and the current occupier inherited this current situation.

Basically (amongst other items) the FRA recommends a BS 5839 Part 1 L5(M) fire alarm system to compensate and also emergency lighting to cover the escape routes in the warehouse.  

FSO reads the FRA and says to the client that  gongs will be ok as a fire alarm and torches for emergency lighting.

In a fire situation where someone got injured or worse, where would the responsibilities lie?

The FSO is not there to make recommendations. He is there to ascertain if the FRA is suitable and sufficient. As long as he can take from the Risk Assessor that a minimum standard has been or will be achieved then he should make no comment.

To do so could be seen as potentially a conflict of interest. Why?

RAr carries out a FRA and advises that a certain level of detection is required.
FSO (who is retiring in 6 months) audits the FRA and advises the RP that a lesser and thus cheaper level would be adequate.
RP likes FSO as he has saved him money and advises his business friends not to use RAr as he over the top but to use FSO (in 6 months time) cos he will save you lots of money.

[William 29]

I agree with you nearlythere but FSO’s do and are making recommendations when auditing FRA’s either below or above what the FRA states and in a lot of cases they are enforcing it as well.

Some notices are quite clever in the wording in that it does not state that the FRA is not suitable and sufficient under article 9 but will state phrase like “fire detection system is  inadequate” and refer to Article 13(1)(a) & 13(2)

[nearlythere]

I agree with you nearlythere but FSO’s do and are making recommendations when auditing FRA’s either below or above what the FRA states and in a lot of cases they are enforcing it as well.

Some notices are quite clever in the wording in that it does not state that the FRA is not suitable and sufficient under article 9 but will state phrase like “fire detection system is  inadequate” and refer to Article 13(1)(a) & 13(2)

I don't think that there as a big an issue with a FSO making recommendations if higher standards than that assessed by the RP is needed. After all he is auditing the measures. Sometimes a tactful advisory approach to cut out the formalities where a certain minimum standard is required can work much best but only where there is no FRA nor safety measures already in place. But to try and discredit the RAr by suggesting that a lesser standard would do or have done is not very professional.
Surely William a lesser degree of an existing measure is not enforced or have I picked you up wrong?

[William 29]

I agree with you nearlythere but FSO’s do and are making recommendations when auditing FRA’s either below or above what the FRA states and in a lot of cases they are enforcing it as well.

Some notices are quite clever in the wording in that it does not state that the FRA is not suitable and sufficient under article 9 but will state phrase like “fire detection system is  inadequate” and refer to Article 13(1)(a) & 13(2)

I don't think that there as a big an issue with a FSO making recommendations if higher standards than that assessed by the RP is needed. After all he is auditing the measures. Sometimes a tactful advisory approach to cut out the formalities where a certain minimum standard is required can work much best but only where there is no FRA nor safety measures already in place. But to try and discredit the RAr by suggesting that a lesser standard would do or have done is not very professional.
Surely William a lesser degree of an existing measure is not enforced or have I picked you up wrong?

Yes you are right I have never seen a lesser standard enforced I just advise the RP in those cases to get the recommendations from the FSO in writting.

[terry martin]

have I got this right?

When you carry out your FRA, you are then representing the responsible person...as if the responsible person has done the FRA themselves?

and when the Fire Authority check the findings it is the responsible person that is accountable?

What happens then if you do a FRA and the responsible person does not agree with aspects within it....ok I understand that you would discuss it with them and try and sort it out but what if in the final analysis, the RP still doesn't agree with the findings?

Not strictly correct, they are both still accountable.

Let's say for example a company employs a RAr to carry out their FRA, the RAr does a bad job and there is subsequently a fire in the premises.
 And, lets say the FRS carry out an after fire inspection and find that the FRA was wholley inadequate and was directly related to the cause and development of the fire. If the RP could show due dilligence in the fact that they had implemented the recommendations of the FRA. but had no knowledge it was inadequate. Then the RAr could find himself in court. as he could be considered the RP to the extent that he had control over the premise.

The RP is defined as;

Article 5

    (3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.

it also clarifies this in the enforcers guide in paragraph 38.

[Mike Buckley]

Also bear in mind that the RP has to employ a competent person to assist him. So the RP would have to show that he taken reasonable steps to ensure that the RAr is competent.

If the RAr has done a bad job and is an outside contractor then the RP would have a case for suing for negilence.

I see (3) as covering the circumstances where there is a firm which has a number of premises. The MD (CEO whatever) is the RP and is responsible however the general manager of a site can also be held responsible for the site he has control of. So for example the fire exits in a shop which is part of a chain are obstructed, the MD of the chain is responsible as he is the RP for the chain, however the general manager of the particular shop is also responsible as he has control over that store.

Take it further a FRA is carried out on the store which recommends that a new fire alarm system is installed. If the general manager applies for funding to install the system and the MD of the chain refuses it then it falls on the MD. If the general manager decides not to install a new system then he will be held responsible, but there will still be some fallout on the MD.

One of the other threads in this forum was going on about the increase in prosecutions under the RRO over the FPA and an article quoted in the thread had the comment that one of the reasons why there were more prosecutions was that the person who was responsible was now clearly identifiable which was not the case under the FPA.